Brett, Russell references Brown vs BOE and a a supposed single footnote. As far as I can tell there are 14 footnotes and none of them address what he said they do. I don’t remember the specific author he said was referenced in the footnote, can you tell me who that was?

This is where you want to take the show, Brett? This is where you want to direct all that positivity & goodwill and inclusiveness you’be built up ober the years? What am I to do now as a loyal listener and homeschooling father to a nine-year-old black girl?

Something’s missing in your psychic make-up. I could hear it when you described that poor bastard stuck alone on a bridge without a hope in the world, the solipsism of it — how it all affected you, not him. You’ve got some missing bone. Thanks for all the good times, and there were many, and usubscribe.

Assuming you may not have “unsubscribed” yet, I’d be curious to hear you expand on your problem with this episode. I listened to it and though I believe it is indeed controversial, I don’t really understand the point you’re getting at.

If you don’t mind taking the time, I’d appreciate hearing you clarify the issues you have.

You do your daughter a disservice by getting emotional over something you obviously either don’t fully grasp or if you do GRASP it, your emotional IQ is far too low. You owe it to your daughter not to quiver at the thought of someone having an opposing POV. The world is full of opposing view, what should she do?

I don’t know if I commented on this in another thread but I bought a copy of Thaddeus’ book. At the moment, it’s on my list, but I decided to let my 17 year old son read it. He loves it. From listening to the Podcast, I can tell I will too.
Give us more stuff like Thaddeus. 😉
BTW, I follow Thaddeus’ thoughts on the repressive psychology of “American Culture” but couldn’t this be traced back even further to Neo-Platonic influence? I mean the aversion against sex was not a strictly European creation!

After reading the criticisms of Thaddeus I have to double my endorsement of reading his work. That doesn’t mean I would endorse his works blindly — but, hey, the beauty of a forum is to get people to discuss their ideas, encourage validating what you read, and listening impartially to understand what people are saying. Works in all directions positively.

Very interesting discussion here. I’m going to go back and listen a second time. I want to extend a criticism that came to mind while listening, in regards to work ethic, the notion of smart phones came up, which I took to be a symbol for material prosperity, and I’d say a compelling argument was made that we don’t have to work as hard as we do for such things; yet, haven’t we merely outsourced the brutal labor to other slaves, building the technology in places like China? I’m thinking that the amount of total work required to run the society hasn’t changed as much as it appears, it simply has moved to different work forces. That’s not to say that our first world European counterparts don’t have a better comprehension of the game, or that Americans don’t work compulsively beyond what is good for us with potentially a false ideal driving that, we do; nevertheless, the ease of our lives seems quite dependent on the hardship of others. This does not mean that I am convinced that this is fundamentally how it has to be, but an aspect that ought to be included in further discussion on work, and independent livelihood.

Regarding Gunnar Myrdal who was discussed, it can be worth pointing out that he was in fact, a very racist nationalist, and one of the main architechts of the modern Swedish state called “Folkhemmet” (the people’s home) built on the nationalist German ideology Volksgemeinschaft.

In his very influental book about the “Negro problem” in the United States that you discussed, he also “openly agreed with the goal of removing black people from the country, even to the point of recommending openly how it might be accomplished”.

I won’t defend racism, but I will be so bold as to suggest that mmmhaps race-ism has put the Northern Germans in a rather delicate position. Always getting the news last, quite literally, we’re on the outside, looking in.

It’s my contention after reading the Gallic Wars that Scandza’s geographical location has made Germany into a melting pot for fanatical bio hackers for the better part of four thousand years. Their way of doing agriculture didn’t change some places until the 1900s, the custom that no people should settle alongside their lands, I believe, stayed alive for a very long time indeed and they thought nothing of robbery, since possessions were associated with, what we only can assume was, drudgery and mania. Add to that, that the highest distinction of honour among them was to avoid using clothes and to sleep in a house was connected with deep shame. Another thing to keep in mind, is that they conceivedly practiced austere egalitarianism and worshipped as the Middle Easterners did; the sun, the moon and fire. The Reformation didn’t come out of a hole in the wall, you know. No, sirree. We’re talking about a culture that consistently raised children that were stronger and less arrogant than anyone else around, unless you should go all the way to Bjarmaland. Just listen to this phrase in your mind, spoken in Pig Swedish and you’ll fast realize how big of a bitch the Viking middle man was to the English after the Black Plague.

Practice what you preach

First word is Pig Latin, the next a a universal word for cumulation, the next ascriptive of blood, as in tree sap, and the last is from a very old Church Latin word, formed in English.

Prakt är(s) vad ni (p)rekker

Prackt means magnificent beauty. Rekker and reach is the same, as is brekker and breaks.

=

Prackt is wad you puh-reach
~
Broken is what you break

Now that’s humour right there.

P is the symbol for ‘head’ in Sumerian.

English took the word for you from Scandinavia, where it was yor. It’s the one that most resembles yew in pronounciation and it coincides in time with the standardization of Jew.

To the Hanseatics who just wanted to get trade done, the two languages probably were polar opposites in more ways than the political and the interface would have been the tourney ground for much pidginization and creolization, even, there it took place on the ships decks once they saw the Danish straits approaching. «Say cheese!»

As usual this was a very interesting podcast. Russell offers a revisionist and controversial view of history. His views are his own, of course, and considering his hardcore leftist upbringing, it is not surprising that he has internalized a fair amount of cultural Marxism.

What Russell refers to as “sexual repression”, others may call sexual morality. Sexual freedom is really a delusion because, as all adults should know, actions have consequences. There was a time when most people associated sexual intercourse with procreation and not just recreation: the moral equivalent of eating a sandwich.

The restrictions society once put on sex while repressive at times and sometimes ridiculous nevertheless acknowledged the dangers that sexual license posed to society.

Of course sex is pleasurable. So is eating. But like sating hunger, sexual desire must be channeled by the guiding forces of convention and morality.

Acknowledging sexual morality is not akin to “hating” sex. After all, it was during the “sexually repressive” 1950’s that America experienced the baby boom. Obviously, there was a lot of sexual intercourse, it just happened to be occurring in the context of marriage.

Revolutionaries from Marquis de Sade to Wilhelm Reich have understood the best way to destabilize and overturn society was to undermine sexual morality.

Russell’s trivialization of the nuclear family is equally dismaying. Sure, it is restrictive but that’s life. We have obligations that place demands on our time and resources. What is the alternative? The nuclear family may not be the global norm. So what? Monogamy restricts freedom but it also ensures that children have stable homes where they can develop and be safe from predation.

Are societies where polygamy is widely practiced more stable and happier than those where monogamy is the norm? I don’t think so. Polygamy marginalizes young men and exposes young women to exploitation by a few wealthy old men. All things considered, the patriarchal nuclear family gives women and children the best deal.

The decline of the nuclear family has been a disaster for children and has resulted in gradual depopulation of the industrialized world. Poverty and crime are directly related to single parent families, something an earlier generation used to appropriately call “broken homes.”

Yes, much of black popular culture is enjoyed by whites but we should not overlook the cultural degradation the music and motion picture industries have promoted for decades.

Regarding Gunnar Myrdal and his An American Dilemma, many believe he did not write it. It appears, he was just a front man and the book was ghost written by sociologists from the University of Chicago. So here we may have the black hand of the Rockefellers at work again. You know the game people who funded the pederast Alfred Kinsey, promoted feminism, and sparked the Sexual Revolution by introducing the Pill.